Iran's foreign minister dismissed the Republican letter explaining the Constitution as a "propaganda ploy" and pointed out a deal wouldn't be bilateral.

Forty seven of 54 Senate Republicans signed an open letter (pdf) addressed to the "leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," who "may not fully understand our constitutional system," purporting to explain how the Constitution works and warning that an "executive agreement" between President Obama and the supreme leader of Iran might not be honored by a future U.S. president. From the letter:

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

The Republicans go on to explain term lengths and limits, noting President Obama leaves office in 2017 but some of them may remain in office for "decades." None of the seven Republican senators who didn't sign the letter—Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Dan Coats (Ind.), Susan Collins (Maine), That Cochran (Miss.), and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)—are considered likely presidential candidates.

Vice President Joe Biden thought the letter was "beneath the dignity" of the institution he reveres, and spent decades in himself. Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, dismissed the letter as a transparent "propaganda play," which he said suggested:

some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."

Iran's foreign minister also pointed out in comments in a press release from Iran's U.N. mission that any agreement on the country's nuclear program would not be a bilateral deal between the U.S. and Iran but include other countries involved in the negotiations as well. Zarif:

"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

The negotiations with Iran, in fact, are happening in part within the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty Iran acceded to in 1970, before the coup that brought the Islamic Republic to power. Iran has been found in non-compliance of the treaty before but, unlike North Korea, has not withdrawn from the treaty. Other countries that acquired nuclear capabilities after the 1940s—Israel, India, and Pakistan—are not members of the treaty.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

This letter turned out way better than I thought it would. I thought they were going to send out something complaining about the presidents actions, but instead they decided to remind the world that they are the ones in charge of treaties. Good on congress, it’s about time they asserted their authority.

This article is completely erroneous. I have it on good authority, from a lefty friend on Facebook, that this letter undermines the President and everyone who signs it should be brought up on treason charges. She did this in a very angry and profane post, so it must be true.

“The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments … may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

Really? So I could fly to Iran, say that I’m here to represent the US, make an agreement with them, and then the US couldn’t say that its not bound by my agreement since internal US law says I have no authority to make such an agreement? I’m certainly no international law expert, but that seems quite unlikely to me.

Under the U.S. system, treaties are just another kind of federal law, but one that can be ratified by just one house, the Senate. Legally, it’s simply not true that treaties trump everything else–they don’t. The treaties that are only signed off by the executive branch and not ratified are accepted these days, but they aren’t really binding in the same sense, given that Congress can refuse to implement one jot of the treaty or can pass laws contrary to the treaty.

Ok. But the Iranian official’s position appears to be that the US obligated by any international agreement reached by the President, regardless of any ratification procedures or other features of US law that limit or restrict his authority.

The whole point of making treaties “supreme” is that no one would make the concessions necessary to get a treaty unless they knew that the United States’ treaty obligations were legally binding in the future.

It’s a necessary precondition for standing in negotiations.

That’s why it takes a two-thirds of the Senate super-majority to ratify it–just like it does with an Amendment to the Constitution.

I would say a treaty is below the Constitution, but it’s above federal law.

What do you base that on? The same clause of the constitution that makes treaties “supreme” also make federal law “supreme.” I’m pretty sure the point of the supremacy clause is to say that federal law and treaties outrank state and local laws.

They are on the same level, and in the event of conflict the more recent of the two prevails. But that’s all a matter of domestic law, it has no bearing on the obligations of the US under international law.

They’re not in the same level if one of them needs a supermajority to “repeal”.

And you can withdraw from a treaty–assuming the terms of the treaty allow that.

Hell, even poorly written business contacts have an exit clause.

I hope you all are getting that I’m not talking about the way things should be. I’m talking about the way things are. If two-thirds of a Democrat controlled Congress ratified a climate change treaty that getting out of was made as difficult as possible within the treaty, Congress would not simply be able to repeal it or overwrite it with a new law.

The alleged Saddam Hussein spy money that paid for Rep. Jim McDermott’s trip to Iraq in 2002 came after a stranger called a Seattle anti-war activist and offered to finance the prewar visit.

The Seattle activist, Bert Sacks, said he was making arrangements for the trip at McDermott’s request when he got the call out of the blue from a man who identified himself as a concerned Iraqi-American.

Federal prosecutors believe the money was illegally funneled from Saddam’s intelligence officials, through an unnamed intermediary, and to a Dearborn Heights, Mich., activist named Muthanna Al-Hanooti.

I think it’s fantastic to see the Senate assert itself like this. It isn’t hard to imagine why they might–given that the Obama Administration has shown open contempt for Congress’ role in ratifying treaties specifically.

“WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.”

Notice, the Obama Administration made this announcement a week before the midterms!

Obama isn’t just contemptuous of Congress. He’s contemptuous of the Democrats in Congress! Now that he’s been reelected, he doesn’t care what happens to the Democrats. He isn’t going to hold back anything just to save them.

And given the way Obama does things? Letting him fiddle with our healthcare was bad enough. Nuclear proliferation is too important an issue to let Obama sell American security down the river–just so that he can have a nice photo op and claim some kind of legacy.

We shouldn’t let Obama pass it to see what’s in it on a nuclear proliferation treaty with Iran, and we shouldn’t let him make an agreement treaty on climate change come Paris in December either.

The United States and the Soviet Union were on the only nations in to acquire nuclear weapons in “the 1940s”

The first American nuclear bomb test was in 1945. The first Soviet nuclear bomb test was in 1949. The first British nuclear bomb test was in 1952. The first French nuclear bomb test was in 1960. The first Chinese nuclear bomb test was in 1964.

Those are the 5 recognized & permitted nuclear weapons states under the NPT, which as you note was signed in 1970.

The letter is a response to a President who made it clear he thinks he can bind the US to a treaty agreement without the consent of the Senate is clear violation of the US Constitution. Obama’s narcissism and arrogance is the source of the battle, not the Senators. Obama is obsessed with making this deal because he knows his presidency will be seen by history as a failure. However, he thinks brokering a deal like Carter did with Israel and Egypt will create some type of lasting legacy. I think Obama knows eventually his healthcare plan will be overturned or simply collapse since it was so poorly written and poorly implemented. He is desperate not to be part of Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Pierce or Chester Arther part of Presidential history.

So disappointing seeing R. Paul signing on to this ridiculousness. I was bothered by his attempt to straddle the line about the DHS funding vote, knowing full well the democrats were going to win. Now I understand what people are referring to when they wonder about his attempt to win over the Republican powers (Adelson) and not alienating libertarians.

At the end of the day, the Republican leadership bafoons look like a bunch of political amateurs.

So Rand Paul does two, possibly three, dumbass things, but only the GOP leadership are buffoons?

The GOP letter violates the Logan Act, thus is treason punishable by a fine or three years in prison. So they also forfeit any standing to claim Obama is acting illegally, as their letter admits Obama is acting within the law here/.